CYRIL H. WECHT, M.D. J.D.
DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY
ST. FRANCIS CENTRAL HOSPITAL
1200 CENTRE AVENUE
PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA 15219
(412) 281-9090
FAX (412 261-3650
Forensice Pathology
Legal Medicine
A F F I D A V I T O F C Y R I L H. W E C H T
I, CYRIL H. WECHT, M.D., U.D., having been duly sworn according to law, do hereby state the following to be true and correct according to my own knowledge, information and belief:
My name is Cyril H. Wecht and I am a resident of Allegheny County.
I am a licensed physician and attorney admitted to practice both medicine and law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
My area of specialization is forensic pathology and I received my board certification in this field in 1964. 1 have written articles and books concerning forensic pathology and related subjects and am frequently involved as a lecturer and speaker on issues of interest to forensic pathologists. I have testified as an expert witness in several hundred trials as a forensic pathologist over the past 33 years.
I was elected as Coroner of Allegheny County on November 7, 1995 and assumed the duties of County Coroner on January 1, 1996.
I had previously held the office of Allegheny County Coroner from 1970 to 1980. I had also served the County as its chief forensic pathologist for 4 years (1966 – 1970).
Forensic pathology is the study of changes in a body which occur from sudden, unexpected, unexplained or violent death. Accordingly, the forensic pathologist can play a very important role both in the investigative stage of a suspected homicide and in any trial which might be held as the result of a homicide.
Over the years, I have been called upon either to testify as a forensic pathologist or to serve as an expert consultant in numerous high profile cases around the country. Most recently, I testified as an expert witness in the second trial of the Menendez brothers in California.
The role of the pathologist is not only to identify the cause of death in a particular case, but, if requested, to explore with the prosecution and/or defense the likely role of various suspects or participants. It is therefore both proper and necessary for effective counsel to consult with a pathologist in a homicide case, as the pathologist can offer concrete expert opinions about the participation of various suspects based upon a study of available forensic evidence.
It is absolutely essential for defense counsel to consult with a pathologist and/or criminalist in a homicide case involving multiple defendants who each deny committing the murder. Even if the prosecution’s theory of the case cannot be ruled out as an impossibility from a physical or temporal standpoint, the pathologist can be used to determine if there are one or more alternative scenarios, thereby establishing a question of reasonable doubt.
I was the Allegheny County Coroner at the time Charles J. Goldblum was tried for the stabbing death of George Wilhelm in 1977. I did not perform the autopsy of George Wilhelm although, as Coroner, I retained primary responsibility for the conduct of my office in the case.
The Wilhelm case was assigned to my chief forensic pathologist at the time, Joshua Perper, M.D., who testified for the Commonwealth at the Goldblum trial. Neither the prosecution nor the defense requested my personal participation in this matter.
During my tenure as Coroner it has always been the policy of the Coroner’s Office to cooperate with all of the attorneys involved in a case. The Coroner’s office is an independent agency and does not serve as an arm of the prosecution. It was well known by criminal defense attorneys in Allegheny County that they could always discuss their concerns about a case with me.
Where a case is assigned to another pathologist, such as the Wilhelm case, I would have been notified of requests for information from defense counsel and would have had input into the information and opinions provided by those involved.
No pre-trial inquiries were made of the Coroner’s Office by Charles Goldblum’s defense counsel concerning the significance of available forensic evidence to Goldblum’s defense. Thus, I was not called upon to review the evidence or offer an opinion concerning the case at the time of trial.
I have recently been asked to examine some of the Goldblum case material. My review of Dr. Perper’s trial testimony disclosed that neither the prosecution nor defense asked Dr. Perper for an opinion, based on his review of the evidence, as to Charles Goldblum’s role in the murder of George Wilhelm.
Furthermore, since Dr. Perper was called as a Commonwealth witness, the prosecutor’s failure to elicit Dr. Perper’s expert opinion concerning the likelihood of Mr. Goldblum’s role in the death of Mr. Wilhelm leads me to believe that he was concerned that such testimony would undermine the Commonwealth’s case.
As Dr. Perper was not asked by either side at trial to discuss his opinions concerning Mr. Goldblum’s role in the death of George Wilhelm, it would not have been appropriate or even possible for him to do so.
Additionally, I know from the transcripts in this case that the defense did not call any other forensic pathologist or criminalist as a witness to discuss the significance of the forensic evidence.
Given that the murder was committed by one or both of two people, Charles Goldblum and/or Clarence Miller, Goldblum’s co-defendant; that the victim identified Clarence Miller as the murderer; and that Charles Goldblum denied any participation in the killing, it was incumbent upon defense counsel to present expert forensic scientific testimony that might have secured an acquittal. I can think of no valid or logical reason, i.e. designed to advance his client’s interests, for counsel’s failure to present the expert testimony of a forensic pathologist and/or criminalist in this case.
Based upon my review and analysis of the autopsy report prepared by this office on February 10, 1976, numerous police and other investigative reports and statements and various court documents, I have concluded to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Mr. Goldblum was not the individual who inflicted the fatal stab wounds to Mr. Wilhelm.
My opinion in this matter is based upon a number of factors. Initially, the presence of blood spatters on the dashboard of Mr. Wilhelm’s car establishes that the stabbing began while he was in the car. Mr. Miller’s testimony that no stabbing occurred until the victim fled the car is directly contradicted by this physical evidence.
Mr. Wilhelm was sitting in the driver’s seat; Mr. Miller was in the front passenger seat, and Mr. Goldblum was in the rear seat. As the blood spatters were in front of the victim, not behind him, it is more likely than not that he was stabbed by someone in front of or immediately to the side of him. Given the relative positions of the parties, the physical evidence points to Mr. Miller as being the person who stabbed Wilhelm while in the car.
The pattern of blood distribution on the dashboard evidenced a left to right movement. This pattern is consistent with and establishes that Mr. Wilhelm was stabbed by the person to his right – Clarence Miller.
Several of Mr. Wilhelm’s stab wounds were quite serious. His left jugular vein was cut, his liver was punctured, the left lung was penetrated, and the aorta was cut. The bleeding caused by these wounds was massive. The chest cavity was found to contain 1,500 cc of blood (about 1 1/2 quarts). The abdominal cavity contained 1,006 cc of blood (about 1 quart).
Given the number and severity of the stab wounds, it is unimaginable to me that Mr. Wilhelm’s assailant would not have gotten a significant amount of blood on his clothes. Yet, Mr. Wilhelm’s blood was not found on the clothes seized from Mr. Goldblum. Mr. Miller, however, admitted that he had attempted to dispose of his own clothes which had become stained with Wilhelm’s blood.
Additionally, Mr. Miller testified that Mr. Goldblum wore his gloves while committing the murder. The only person that has been linked to the gloves through scientific evidence is Miller himself.
Finally, I have considered the dying declaration of the victim. George Wilhelm identified Clarence Miller as his murderer before he died. The law puts great weight on such statements as there is a strong presumption that someone about to die will truthfully identify his killer. In this case, the forensic evidence supports Mr. Wilhelm’s dying declaration.
( signed )
Cyril Wecht, M.D.,.J.D.
Before me, the undersigned notary public, this 7th day of February, 1996, personally appeared Cyril H. Wecht, M.D.J.D., to be known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct.
Subscribed to an worn before me this 7th day of 1996.